US v Nicaragua

Reflections and Reports
The Comedy of Terror
Cedric J. Robinson

...
In an earlier time, before the formulation of notions like war crimes, crimes against humanity, the genocide convention, and global human rights, later observers might have constructed the anarchy of international law as an absent brake. However, when the International Court of Justice, the world court, was established in the mid-1940s, this was no longer the case. Under the signature of President Truman, the United States consented to the jurisdiction of the court. For forty years, the United States remained within the adjudication of the International Court. But in 1986, the Reagan administration unilaterally rescinded the court's authority, preferring international anarchy to the public humiliation of a formal judgment on its conduct of foreign policy in Central America. The occasion was Nicaragua v. United States of America, a suit brought by the Nicaraguan government to the International Court. On June 27, 1986, the court published its findings, among them rejecting the United States' assertion that it had no jurisdiction. Some of the world court's decisions doubtlessly concern state terror:

By twelve votes to three: Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

By fourteen votes to one, Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled " Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas ," and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law. 1

Mark Weisbrot recently recalled just what "principles of humanitarian law" were violated in Nicaragua: "They [the U.S. agencies and the contras] waged war not so much against the Nicaraguan army as against 'soft targets': teachers, health care workers, elected officials (a CIA-prepared manual actually advocated their assassination). . . . They blew up bridges and health clinics, and with help from a U.S. trade embargo beginning in 1985, destroyed the economy of Nicaragua." 2 The corporate American press said and wrote little about these actions. And when they were infrequently noted, there was nothing like the apocalyptic language of today ("threats to civilization," etc.) to suggest that an American government and its surrogates had violated the basic principles of democracy.

The court awarded Nicaragua $17 billion. And beyond U.S. shores, the decision was applauded widely. Unreported in the American press, Pope John Paul II, for one, congratulated the court on its vindication of international law. The debt was, however, "forgiven" by a new government in Nicaragua, installed as a beneficiary of the undeclared American war on that country. [End Page 166]

What the Reagan government fomented in Nicaragua was merely a complement to the actions of preceding American governments in Central America. For thirty years, in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, U.S. officials, covert operatives, and military personnel had supported state terrorism that left hundreds of thousands dead, among them peasants, priests, nuns, unionists, political leftists, and the like. Much of this, too, was unreported, or at best misreported at the time. So a few years back, when President Clinton issued a public apology to Central Americans for (some) of the actions of his predecessors, it came somewhat as a surprise for a majority of the American public.
...

1. The particulars of the decision included: "Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State." Nicaragua v. United States of America, International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986, available at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm.

2. Mark Weisbrot, "What Everyone Should Know about Nicaragua," Z Magazine, November 9, 2001.

Cedric J. Robinson teaches black studies and political theory at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He is author of Black Marxism, Black Movements in America (1983), and, most recently, An Anthropology of Marxism (2001). He is also cohost (with Elizabeth Robinson) of a Third World News Review, a program on Public Access in Santa Barbara.

(no subject)

Active ingredients in flea medicine

Frontline

Fipronil 9.8%,
S-Methoprene 8.8%
Inert: 81.4%

Zodiac Cat / Hartz Ultra guard plus

S-Methopre 3.6%
Etofenprox 40.0%


Adams

Permetrin permethrin
Pripcoxfen Pyriproxfen?

(no subject)

.

Defining Terrorism

November 29, 2001
By Phillip Cryan

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

Another U.S. attack on civilians, the 1986 bombing of Libya, is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism as a "classic case" of terrorism ­ on a short list that includes the bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.


http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil110/terrorism.html

"Legal Definition of Terrorism," GA: Legal Committee, on October 9, 2001

GA= General Assembly

15 Questions

.

Questions of terror

From the MX newspaper (Melbourne, Australia)

March 11, 2003 Tuesday

Pg. 16

It's time to test your knowledge of global politics with a quiz:

1) Which is the only country to have dropped bombs on more than 20 countries since 1945?

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history? See comment below

4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the United Nations Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?

5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986 and then vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law?

6) Which country was accused by a United Nations-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?

7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in December 2001?

8) Which country renounced efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in 2001?

9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001?

10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be applied to children?

12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?

13) Which was the only G7 country to vote against the creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998?

14) Which was the only other country to join Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?

15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the UN, yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?

The answers to all questions: The United States.

Julian, Melbourne